Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1431 In re: MICHAEL ANTHONY DARBY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:07-cr-01253-MBS-1) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Darby, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Darby petitions for a writ of mandamus, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1431 In re: MICHAEL ANTHONY DARBY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:07-cr-01253-MBS-1) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Darby, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Darby petitions for a writ of mandamus, al..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1431
In re: MICHAEL ANTHONY DARBY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:07-cr-01253-MBS-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Darby, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Darby petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from
this court directing the district court to act. Our review of
the district court’s docket reveals that, on June 27, 2014, the
district court granted the Government’s motion for summary
judgment on Darby’s § 2255 motion except as to Darby’s claim
that counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately advise him
regarding a formal plea offer. The court ordered this claim be
held in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly,
because the district court has recently acted on Darby’s § 2255
motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2